What qualifies as a "new" game?

[Luminous_Umbra]

I've been meaning to make this thread for a while, as this question has been bugging me: What is a "new" game?

To clarify, various video game companies (often Nintendo) are said to make the same game over and over, or some variant of that phrasing.

However, even when another game in a series is made, it usually has a decent amount changed and/or added to. Even with remakes, most of the time, something is added in.

So I ask you Escapist, what counts as a "new" game? What is "making the same game" and what isn't?

 

[omega 616]

In this case, a new IP.

New characters, new universe, new lore ... maybe new game mechanics, like the nemesis system.

To use your example, nintendo launch a new system ... what 2 games are likely to appear on it? Nintendo release a handheld, what game can you expect to see on it? if you answered Mario and Zelda for question 1 and pokémon for question 2, then help yourself to an internet!

It's like they come up with an idea for a game and when it comes to characters they just say "just stick Mario in it, like we always do!" ... for a fucking plumber he has quite the extravagant life! He has time to save princess multiple times, go karting, play tennis, be a doctor, go into space, go to the olympics, have parties and brawls, play golf, go on an adventure in an RPG, go inside their nemesis AND fight a huge gorilla ... have they released a game in which Mario does the water puzzles from bioshock 1? AKA does Mario ever be a plumber?

 

[tippy2k2]

It's a lot like porn versus art; you'll know it when you see it.

Some people are perfectly happy with minor tweaks and variations to the game that make it better (see Sport games, Nintendo games, Assassins Creed) and some people are not happy unless the old game's concept is completely blown up and created new again (see Bioshock, Nintendo's jump from 2D to 3D).

Frankly, I've found if you're a fan of the game series, the tweaks and changes make the game play way differently and if you don't like the game series, it's just a rehash and only stupid sheep buy it.

I'm a big fan of Madden so I could go through each years iteration and give you a nice paragraph of what changed and why it's worth spending $60 on. I could not care less about Mario so it looks like $60 for the same exact game to me.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

So I ask you Escapist, what counts as a "new" game? What is "making the same game" and what isn't?

1. New setting, genre or theme previously unseen. Dramatically fresh IPs.
2. New game play elements, or use of new(ish) game play elements with untapped potential.
3. Genre shift or significant evolutionary step forward for an existing property.
4. Some combination of minor elements of the above.

Generally speaking I find the charge of "same game" gets over-applied, but there are certainly cases of it. MMOs have been suffering from an almost ludicrously slavish attention to WoW's game play conventions without any real understanding or ability to duplicate what made it special. Cities Skylines is a copy/paste of SimCity, right down to the more recent entry's aesthetic, with a few knobs twisted and bells rung to satiate a disgruntled audience. Some titles with rapidly spun out sequels...like Far Cry or Dark Souls...seem to be doing what largely amounts to palette swaps.

Usually they end up being decent games anyway, but I don't think anyone would credit them with being original.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Best answer I can give would be a new IP. Like when Mass Effect first launched, it was a 'new' game. Twilight Princess and Half Life 2 weren't. They were fine games, mind. But not 'new' like Mass Effect.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

To me it's usually a new IP. Either that or a significantly different gameplay.

Alien: Isolation is obviously a "new game" rather than a continuation or extension of Aliens: Colonial Marines, even if both games belong within the same franchise. One is a single-player stealth game, the other is an action multiplayer-oriented game.

On the other hand, I wouldn't call A Link Between Worlds a "new game" just because there's a new wall-merging mechanic for sorting out puzzles. It's still the same traditional top-down action-adventure Zelda RPG, with a new gimmick. New gimmick =/= New game.

 

[Luminous_Umbra]

AKA does Mario ever be a plumber?

Actually, there was some of that in the Mario & Luigi series. Granted, not an entire game about plumbing, but it's there.

It's a lot like porn versus art; you'll know it when you see it.

Some people are perfectly happy with minor tweaks and variations to the game that make it better (see Sport games, Nintendo games, Assassins Creed) and some people are not happy unless the old game's concept is completely blown up and created new again (see Bioshock, Nintendo's jump from 2D to 3D).

Frankly, I've found if you're a fan of the game series, the tweaks and changes make the game play way differently and if you don't like the game series, it's just a rehash and only stupid sheep buy it.

I'm a big fan of Madden so I could go through each years iteration and give you a nice paragraph of what changed and why it's worth spending $60 on. I could not care less about Mario so it looks like $60 for the same exact game to me.

Fair enough, although I try to see it from the other side. (Admittedly though, Madden is one of those cases where I probably have a hard time believing it was very different)

To me it's usually a new IP. Either that or a significantly different gameplay.

Alien: Isolation is obviously a "new game" rather than a continuation or extension of Aliens: Colonial Marines, even if both games belong within the same franchise. One is a single-player stealth game, the other is an action multiplayer-oriented game.

On the other hand, I wouldn't call A Link Between Worlds a "new game" just because there's a new wall-merging mechanic for sorting out puzzles. It's still the same traditional top-down action-adventure Zelda RPG, with a new gimmick. New gimmick =/= New game.

So a genre change is what you mean?

Generally speaking I find the charge of "same game" gets over-applied, but there are certainly cases of it. MMOs have been suffering from an almost ludicrously slavish attention to WoW's game play conventions without any real understanding or ability to duplicate what made it special. Cities Skylines is a copy/paste of SimCity, right down to the more recent entry's aesthetic, with a few knobs twisted and bells rung to satiate a disgruntled audience. Some titles with rapidly spun out sequels...like Far Cry or Dark Souls...seem to be doing what largely amounts to palette swaps.

Usually they end up being decent games anyway, but I don't think anyone would credit them with being original.

True enough. I was hoping to gain some insight into the specifics of the sameness claim with this thread.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

To me it's usually a new IP. Either that or a significantly different gameplay.

Alien: Isolation is obviously a "new game" rather than a continuation or extension of Aliens: Colonial Marines, even if both games belong within the same franchise. One is a single-player stealth game, the other is an action multiplayer-oriented game.

On the other hand, I wouldn't call A Link Between Worlds a "new game" just because there's a new wall-merging mechanic for sorting out puzzles. It's still the same traditional top-down action-adventure Zelda RPG, with a new gimmick. New gimmick =/= New game.

So a genre change is what you mean?

Not necessarily, but gameplay would have to change radically. Both Silent Hill and its remake/re-imagining Shattered Memories are survival horror games, but with completely different gameplay/play style. Shattered Memories is a "new game" in all but name. Just as Resident Evil 4 is still technically "survival horror" (horror-themed, limited resources, inventory management, generally overwhelming the player) like the very first Resident Evil, but the two games feel and play nothing alike.

 

[Roxor]

We could approach the problem from the other angle: What makes for an OLD game?

For the purposes of shows like the Angry Video Game Nerd and his various clones, I'd say having a copyright date more than 10-15 years in the past. Definitely no sooner than 10 though.

So, by that criterion, we could say that a new game is one made in the last 10 years, and a new franchise is one where the first instalment was made no more than 10 years ago.

Boring and broad view of the issue? Probably, but I didn't see anyone else posting it.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

I see it as this...

A new IP is just that, a new IP. It might even take inspiration from other games, to the point it's a mixture of those games, or it's whatever is popular on the market with a new coat of paint. I'd call that a new game, but I wouldn't call it an original game necessarily. A new IP with a concept rarely or never seen before would definitely get the new game label.

--

A game in an established franchise that changes, adds, and improves the series would be a new game. Just new, fresh areas is enough in a few cases.

Some argue that the Zelda series is getting stale (can't argue with that on certain points), but every game after A Link to the Past has done something to change the formula cemented by that title. (Now yes, the stock characters, the save Zelda from Gannon plots, and the typical fire, water, and forest dungeons are getting old. Those are just the most obvious traits people point out.)

--

A remake or re-release is only new in the fact that the physical copy should have shrink wrap and the release date is upcoming/just passed. A re-release/remaster/recash-in still uses most of the old assets and is generally expected to be the same game as the original, minus prettier graphics and maybe some new contend added on. Remakes still follow the concepts of the original, even if some game mechanics are changed and the visual presentation is drastically different.

 

[Lufia Erim]

I've been meaning to make this thread for a while, as this question has been bugging me: What is a "new" game?

To clarify, various video game companies (often Nintendo) are said to make the same game over and over, or some variant of that phrasing.

However, even when another game in a series is made, it usually has a decent amount changed and/or added to. Even with remakes, most of the time, something is added in.

So I ask you Escapist, what counts as a "new" game? What is "making the same game" and what isn't?

Take capcom and the street fighter series.

Street fighter 4, super street fighters 4, super street fighter 4: Arcade edition and Ultra street fighter 4, all are the same game. They are different because they have new character and different mechanics and many tweaks here and there. But for all intent and purposes it is the same game.

I think thats what people are complaining about. Im relation to Mario and CoD , they are essentially the same game with different maps , mechanics and tweaks.

Super mario world> Mario 64 different games
Mario galaxy > mario galaxy 2 same game
Call of duty 3> call of duty 4 different games
Call of duty MW > Call of duty MW2 same game.

But this is just my opinion and I'm rarely "right" on these forums so.

 

[Dragonbums]

A new game is pretty straight forward.

Regardless of whether or not the IP is new- if it features a new story,characters, settings, levels, gameplay elements, progression, etc. It's a new game.

Just because Link and Zelda are in it doesn't make it any less of a new game. One Zelda game took place on a vast ocean, the other took place in the sky. Both featured very different plot points and characters. You can say they are part of the same franchise, and some get even more specific as to say that they are installments. But nobody is going to really debate that they AREN'T two different games.